Courthouse Reporter Series: Louisiana Supreme Court Holds Architect Has No Duty to Safeguard Third Parties Against Injury, Regardless of Knowledge of Dangerous Conditions on the Project
July 31, 2024 —
Stu Richeson - The Dispute ResolverIn Bonilla v. Verges Rome Architects, 2023-00928 (La. 3/22/24); 382 So.3d 62, the Louisiana Supreme Court held because the terms of the agreement between the architect and the public owner did not give the architect responsibility for the means and methods of construction or for safety on the project, the architect did not have a duty to safeguard third parties against injury, regardless of whether the architect may have had knowledge of dangerous conditions on the project.
In Bonilla, the City of New Orleans entered into a contract for the renovation of a building owned by the city. The city also entered into an agreement with Verges Rome Architects (“VRA”) to serve as the project architect. The general contractor on the project subcontracted the demolition work to Meza Services, Inc. (“Meza”).
An employee of Meza was injured while attempting to demolish a “vault” on the project. The vault was a ten-foot by ten-foot cinderblock room with a nine-foot-high concrete slab ceiling located on the second floor of the building. The walls of the vault had been partially demolished when one of the employees of Meza was directed by his supervisor to stand on the ceiling of the vault with a jackhammer to continue the demolition. Shortly after beginning the task, the vault structure collapsed and caused the employee to suffer significant injury.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stu Richeson, PhelpsMr. Richeson may be contacted at
stuart.richeson@phelps.com
No Coverage Under Exclusions For Wind and Water Damage
March 30, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the granting of summary judgment to the insurer that there was no coverage under the all risk policy for loss caused by wind and water. Porter v. Grand Casino of Miss., Inc., 2016 Miss. LEXIS 3 (Miss. Jan. 7, 2016).
Cherri Porter's home was destroyed during Hurricane Katrina. The destruction occurred when the barge operated by Grand Casino of Mississippi came loose from its moorings and collided with her home.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer
October 12, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesProperty insurance policies (first party insurance policies) contain post-loss obligations that an insured must (and should) comply with otherwise they risk forfeiting insurance coverage. One post-loss obligation is the insurer’s right to request the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss. Not complying with a post-loss obligation such as submitting a sworn proof of loss can lead to unnecessary headaches for the insured. Most of the times the headache can be avoided. Even with a sworn proof of loss, there is a way to disclaim the finality of damages and amounts included by couching information as estimates or by affirming that the final and complete loss is still unknown while you work with an adjuster to quantify the loss. The point is, ignoring the obligation altogether will result in a headache that you will have to deal with down the road because the property insurer will use it against you and is a headache that is easily avoidable. And, it will result in an added burden to you, as the insured, to demonstrate the failure to comply did not actually cause any prejudice to the insurer.
By way of example, in Prem v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2044a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the insured notified their property insurer of a plumbing leak in the bathroom. The insurer requested for the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss per the terms of the insured’s property insurance policy. The insurer follow-up with its request for a sworn proof of loss on a few occasions. None was provided and the insured filed a lawsuit without ever furnishing a sworn proof of loss. The insurer moved for summary judgment due the insured’s failure to comply with the post-loss obligations, specifically by not submitting a sworn proof of loss, and the trial court granted the insurer’s motion. Even at the time of the summary judgment hearing, the insured still did not submit a sworn proof of loss.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
New California "Construction" Legislation
November 08, 2018 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerGovernor Jerry Brown signed two potentially impactful Senate Bills relating to the construction of apartment buildings late last month. These Bills, discussed further below, were introduced, in part, in response to the Berkeley balcony collapse in June 2015, which was determined by the California Contractors State License Board to be caused by the failure of severely rotted structural support joists the repair of which were deferred by the property manager, despite indications of water damage.
SENATE BILL 721 ESTABLISHES HEIGHTENED “LOAD-BEARING” INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
On August 21, 2018, the California State Senate passed SB 721, one of two bills by Senator Jerry Hill introduced this year seeking to address the safety of multifamily rental residences. Now that the Governor has signed the Bill, a new section will be added to the California Health and Safety Code, requiring that every 6 years, destructive testing be performed on at least 15% of each type of load-bearing, wood framed exterior elevated element (such as balconies, walkways, and stair landings) in apartment buildings with 3 or more units. Interestingly, prior to being passed by the State Senate, SB 721 was revised in June 2018, such that the inspection requirements do not apply to common interest developments (i.e., condominiums).
As set forth in the new Health and Safety Code Section 17973:
"the purpose of the inspection is to determine that exterior elevated elements and their associated waterproofing elements are in a generally safe condition, adequate working order, and free from any hazardous condition caused by fungus, deterioration, decay, or improper alteration to the extent that the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants is not endangered."
The inspection must be paid for by the building owner and performed by a licensed contractor, architect, or civil or structural engineer, or a certified building inspector or building official from a recognized state, national, or international association. Emergency repairs identified by the inspector must be made immediately. For non-emergency repairs, a permit must be applied for within 120 days and the repair completed within 120 days of the permit’s issuance. If repairs are not completed within 180 days, civil penalties of $100-$500 per day may be imposed.
The required inspection must be completed by January 1, 2025 and every 6 years thereafter, unless an equivalent inspection was performed during the 3 years prior to January 1, 2019, the effective date of the new law. For a building converted to condominiums that will be sold after January 1, 2019, the inspection required by Health and Safety Code Section 17973, must be performed prior to the first close of escrow.
SENATE BILL 1465 SETS CONTRACTOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Governor also signed SB 1465, adding Sections 7071.20, 7071.21, and 7071.22 to the California Business and Professions Code. The new law requires that a contractor licensed with the Contractors’ State License Board "report to the registrar in writing within 90 days after the licensee has knowledge of any civil action resulting in a final judgment, executed settlement agreement, or final arbitration award in which the licensee is named as a defendant or crossdefendant, filed on or after January 1, 2019," that meets certain and specific criteria, including that it is over $1 million and arises out of an action for damages to a property or person allegedly caused by specified construction activities of the contractor on a multifamily rental residential structure.
Where more than one contractor was named as a defendant or cross-defendant, each of the contractors apportioned more than $15,000 in liability must report the action. Importantly, the new statute also imposes similar reporting requirements on insurers of contractors. SB 1465 also addresses an impacted party’s failure to comply with the reporting requirements.
COMMENT
Both SB 721 and SB 1465 are potentially significant and seek “legislative reform” to address construction issues by placing a greater burden on apartment owners as well as builders and subcontractors. How pragmatic and what impact they will have on the industry is obviously developing. If you are interested in receiving further detail concerning the Bills, please contact us. We are analyzing the new legislation and its intent and will be providing our ongoing comments.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
RICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ. CHELSEA L. ZWART, ESQ., CGDRBChelsea L. Zwart may be contacted at
czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Yellen Has Scant Power to Relieve U.S. Housing Slowdown
June 11, 2014 —
Rich Miller and Victoria Stilwell - BloombergThe hesitant housing recovery has surprised and concerned Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and her colleagues at the central bank. It’s not clear how much they can do about it.
While the industry is rebounding from a weather-ravaged first quarter, the pickup will probably fall short of previous projections, according to economists at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. of New York and Macroeconomic Advisers LLC in St. Louis. As a result, they trimmed their forecasts for economic growth in the second half of 2014 to about 3.25 percent from 3.5 percent.
“Housing is a growing worry,” said Macroeconomic Advisers’ senior economist Ben Herzon.
Mr. Miller may be contacted at rmiller28@bloomberg.net; Ms. Stilwell may be contacted at vstilwell1@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rich Miller and Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg
Insured's Claim for Cyber Coverage Rejected
December 29, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiHaving failed to adequately secure cyber coverage, the insured law firm's lawsuit was properly dismissed by the trial court on summary judgment. Johnson v. Smith Bros. Ins., LLC, 2020 Vt. Unpub. LEXIS 98 (Vt. Sept. 4, 2020).
The law firm attended a CLE seminar presented by the Vermont Attorneys Title Insurance Corporation. Scott Garcia, an employee of Smith Brothers, an insurance agency, gave a presentation on professional liability insurance focusing on cybersecurity issues, including fraudulent scams. After the presentation, one of the law firms members spoke with Garcia and expressed an interest in securing a professional malpractice policy with cyber security coverage. Garcia said he would check the firm's current policy, but was confident he could provide better coverage. It was unclear whether the firm ever provided its current policy.
A couple of weeks later, the firm submitted an online application for professional liability coverage through the Smith Brothers' website. The application neither referenced the conversation with Garcia nor specifically requested cybersecurity coverage. Smith Brothers then sent the policy covering a one-year period. The policy included coverage for up to $10,000 for losses resulting from a network or security breach in the performance of professional services. A year later, the firm renewed the same policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
California Supreme Court Shifts Gears on “Reverse CEQA”
February 23, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogThe California Supreme Court has shifted gears on so-called “reverse CEQA” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
The Supreme Court, in a much-anticipated decision, in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Case No. S213478 (December 17, 2015), held that public agencies subject to CEQA are not required to analyze whether existing environmental conditions may impact a proposed project’s future users or residents – also known as “reverse CEQA” or “CEQA in reverse” – as opposed to the more traditional analysis of a proposed project’s impact on the environment, unless:
1. The proposed project risks exacerbating existing environmental hazards – in which case, it is the proposed project’s impact on the environment not the environment’s impact on the proposed project, which compels the evaluation; or
2. A reverse CEQA analysis is already required under statute, for example, on certain airport, school and housing projects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
New NEPA Rule Restores Added Infrastructure Project Scrutiny
May 10, 2022 —
Pam McFarland - Engineering News-RecordThe White House Council on Environmental Quality has finalized a regulation that restores basic project environmental review practices that were in place prior to changes made during the Trump administration. The rule is the first of two that will have the Biden administration’s stamp on how such reviews are done under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for major federal construction projects.
Reprinted courtesy of
Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record
Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
